George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the Chair. Under this amendment, what this amendment says is that the National Labor Relations Board could not enforce the party's obligation to bargain in good faith following a voluntary recognition. So an employer and an employee can get together, they can voluntarily enter into an agreement by which they have their working relationship, and if they're down the road at some point, one of them wants to bring an action, the employer against the employees or the employees against the employer for not bargaining in good faith, the National Labor Relations Board couldn't enforce that, couldn't take any action. This is a voluntary agreement. It doesn't even have to be through the card check process. Any voluntary agreement, you're suggesting that somehow these people would not be able to enforce that agreement once it was entered into. This undermines the rights of potentially millions of American workers that have already organized under voluntary recognition agreements and already engaged in a collective bargaining relationship. These workers may have decades long collective bargaining arrangements already that they have worked under, and then if the most recent contract expires, they would have no enforceable right to go back and enforce their rights under the Souder amendment. This makes no sense. It's rather incredible to me that under the Souder amendment what we would be doing is inserting the government in a private voluntary agreement between an employer and an employer. I understand the gentleman doesn't like card check, but that's not what this is about. This is about any voluntary agreement that they've entered into, and I don't know why we would be inserting the government at this point. Madam Chairman, at this point, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, let me just reiterate again, and my two colleagues have said this. Under existing law today, if the employer doesn't like the agreement, the voluntary agreement, or if employees come to them and say, gee, we all want to join a union, here's a majority, whatever it is, the employer says, no, game is over, it's off, it's done. He has a veto, absolute veto, it's over. So the only way you can have this voluntary agreement is if the employer is happy with it. So, now we have an agreement where the employer's happy, the employees are happy, and they work under it for a number of years, but you cannot ever go and seek enforcement. So apparently what the gentleman is doing, he's just decided he's going to insert the government for only one purpose, and that's the purpose to destroy basic worker rights and the ability to organize the workplace, even if they do it voluntarily and with the consent of the employer. Now, I know the gentleman's always believed in limited government, and I know the gentleman doesn't think the government should interfere in all these contractual arrangements. Here's a voluntary arrangement and you're going to insert the government for one purpose, to deny the employees their rights under the voluntary agreement which they entered into with an employer who had the veto if he didn't want to enter into it. They can't coerce him into doing it. He has the veto. We should reject this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I want to thank Mr. Kildee for his authorship of this legislation for over, I believe, 12 years now in support of this legislation, and Mr. Duncan, his cosponsor, for the same years, to try and provide for the organization of our public safety officers around the country. I want to thank Mr. Keller for his work on the subcommittee and Mr. Andrews for shepherding this bill through the committee. With the 280 cosponsors of this legislation, which obviously represents very strong bipartisan support, this legislation clearly demonstrates that this Congress is committed to protecting the rights and the livelihoods of our first responders, and this legislation stands in tribute to these dedicated men and women. I am proud that the Education and Labor Committee was able to pass H.R. 980 out of the committee almost unanimously by a vote of 42-1. Firefighters, police officers, correction officers and emergency medical technicians risk their lives each and every day to protect our lives and this country. H.R. 980 will ensure that all public safety officers have a right to sit down with their employers and bargain over wages and working conditions. While States and cities and towns have historically managed their own labor relations, approximately 28 States do not fully protect the collective bargaining rights of public safety employees. That is why this legislation is so necessary. This legislation would respect those States that already provide for collective bargaining rights for public safety employees, but it would extend those rights in all other States. The bill would provide basic labor protections for State and local public safety workers, including the right to join a union, the right to have their union recognized by their employer, the right to bargain collectively over hours, wages, terms and conditions of employment, a mediation or arbitration process for resolving the impasse in negotiations, and enforcement through the courts. H.R. 980 will give public safety officers a voice in issues like safety on the job and effective delivery of services. It will improve communications and cooperation between rank-and-file public safety employees and their employers, ensuring a more cohesive and coordinated operation. That's the crux of this legislation. This gives the rights of these negotiations, the rights of these discussions, the rights to have a union, to the very same people that we trust every day to protect our lives, to protect our communities, to protect our country, both before and after a terrorist attack, before and after a criminal act. These are the people that we trust to do this. This legislation, under the authorship of Mr. Kildee and Mr. Duncan, also suggests that we trust them to have a responsible say in their workplace conditions, in how they carry out their job, to make suggestions, to negotiate with their employers, to more effectively carry out their duties. I think it is a long time coming. I think this legislation and its very broad cosponsorship indicate this could have been done much sooner, but it is going to be done today. It is going to pass the House today. I believe it will pass with large bipartisan support. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I also want to say that the fact that this legislation is here today, although 12 years late, is maybe a hallmark of Mr. Kildee's career, and that is persistence. He doesn't give up on an idea because others disagree. He has pushed for this legislation year in and year out. He was not allowed to have it heard for passage, and this year we were able to accommodate him and Mr. Duncan. When we do that, we are also accommodating and supporting our first responders all across the country who need these rights to better do the job that we have handed to them, a very difficult, a very dangerous job. I would hope that the House would pass this legislation overwhelmingly.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Chairman Skelton's bill to bring American forces home from Iraq and to begin to end this tragic war, a war borne of lies, ignorance and arrogance. The cost of this war has been high to our country, to our economy but, most importantly, to our men and women in uniform, for they have taken all of the sacrifice for our President's decision to take this country to war in Iraq. Our military responded honorably to the President's decision, but he failed to honor their sense of duty and their courage with a plan that was designed to succeed. His failed policy has cost their families, their communities, and most tragically, it has cost them their limbs and their lives. The war in Iraq cannot be won, and it cannot be lost. It can only be brought to an end. The President continues to display both sheer arrogance and tragic ignorance as he refuses to change policy. Over and over again, it says the same thing, to stay the same course, to give them more time and that success is just around the corner. The American people realize that staying the course in Iraq was not a plan, and it is not going to work. I have known, as many of my Democratic colleagues have, that staying the course is not acceptable. We honor our troops when we have the courage to bring them home and end this war.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 531, I call up the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 15 seconds to say, it's most interesting to sit here and be lectured by people who, when they controlled every department of government, every branch of government, they took a $5 trillion surplus that they inherited from the Clinton administration and immediately turned it into a $3 trillion debt that this Nation now is carrying around as it tries to compete in the world. To be lectured by mindless spenders like that is really a treat on this floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the Democratic leader.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention, and we look forward to continuing to work with him on this issue. As he has pointed out to this committee and many Members of Congress, we in fact have a workforce crisis, and that is what we have tried to address in the loan forgiveness program in those professions that are not necessarily the highest paying in our society but are essential to the well-being of our society. We will work with the gentleman as this bill proceeds through the legislative process on this matter.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and look forward to continuing to work with him on this issue in this conference and also on the Higher Education Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the committee who had a major amendment in this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) a member of the committee. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee. (Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), a member of the committee. (Ms. CLARKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the members of the committee for their work on this legislation on both sides of the aisle. I certainly want to thank the staff as we finish general debate. Mr. Speaker, we said when we gained the majority in this Congress that we wanted to take America in a new direction. This legislation, in fact, does that. For 6.8 million students who take out need-based loans, this legislation will allow for cutting the interest rate in half over the next 5 years for those students. That will save them almost $4,400 on the average debt that they graduate with. For almost 5.5 million students who rely on a Pell Grant for the basic cost of their education, this means that over the next 4 years that grant will increase by some $500, definitely a new direction. Because what we saw in the past was the Republicans made it more expensive to pay for your student loans. They provided little or no contribution to the Pell Grant over the last 4 or 5 years. That is a new direction. What does it mean to America? It means that we are investing in the students and the talent of the future. It means that these are the young people that will take their talents and provide the next generation of discovery, the next generation of innovation, the next generation of jobs in America, the next generation of economic activity here at home. That's the investment that was made by our grandparents back in 1944, in that generation, the first generation to go to college in such great numbers with the GI Bill, and that's the investment that we have the courage and the vision to make in this generation of young people for the future of this country. That's what this legislation is about. It's about making sure that the doors of a higher education that every employer tells us is now necessary to come to the American workplace if you want a career and you want a decent wage and you want to be able to provide for your family. The doors to those higher education institutions, be they community colleges, State colleges, universities or elite universities, however you want to characterize them, that those doors will not be closed to people who are talented and ready and qualified to go to college. This legislation provides the means to ensure their access to help them pay for it and to help them make sure that they don't have to make choices against their best interest because of that debt and later in life that they can choose to go into the professions that serve us as a society. This is a dramatic departure, a dramatic departure from the status quo, a dramatic departure. What the Republicans did, when they had a chance, they had $20 billion. They decided they would help pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country. That's what they did with a big chunk of the money that they took from these excess subsidies, the subsidies that we are taking a way from the banks. The entitlement program that the banks have today as we stand here will be changed. Yes, it will become an entitlement program for America's families, America's students, those most at need in this country. That's what this Congress ought to be doing. That's what this society wants us to do, and we're going to do it today when we pass this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.